Here’s one [oh, if you want to add your comment to all the others, use this link] at Golden Gate Park’s Stow Lake from, IDK, a decade ago? This male has a blush of orange, as is typical for this time of year – they generally have more of a pure yellow color at other times:

“San Francisco’s participatory waterfront land use decision-making has included voters, elected leaders and appointed commissioners for decades, City Attorney argues

SAN FRANCISCO (July 15, 2014) — The California State Lands Commission today sued San Francisco to invalidate Proposition B, an initiative measure passed in the June 3 election that requires voter approval for waterfront development height increases on property owned or controlled by the Port of San Francisco. The legal challenge filed in San Francisco Superior Court contends that the California legislature specifically intended to prohibit local voters from exercising authority over bay and coastal public trust lands, strictly limiting management of state tidelands to designated trustees. In its legal action today, the State Lands Commission argues that the sole trustee responsible for sovereign tidelands in San Francisco is the city’s Port Commission. The State Lands Commission is additionally seeking a preliminary injunction to bar San Francisco from enforcing Prop B.

In response, City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued the following statement:

“For decades, land use decisions involving San Francisco’s waterfront have included voters, elected leaders and appointed members of our Planning and Port Commissions. It’s a participatory process that enacted a comprehensive Waterfront Land Use Plan in 1990, developed a showplace ballpark for the Giants, and continues to protect an urban waterfront that is the envy of cities worldwide. San Francisco’s deliberative decision-making process on waterfront land use has never been successfully challenged, and I intend to defend it aggressively. With today’s lawsuit, the State Lands Commission seems to have embraced the notion that any local initiative — and, by extension, any land use regulation approved by a Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission — affecting port property is barred by state law, and therefore invalid. That view represents a radical departure in law and practice from land use decision-making in San Francisco and elsewhere. While the City must certainly honor its obligations as trustee in managing public trust property, it is a legally and practically untenable position to argue that San Francisco’s voters and elected officials have no direct say over how our city’s waterfront is developed.”

I don’t know why he cares so much about this issue. Mayor Ed Lee, who embarrassingly campaigned for 8 Washington with Gavin Newsom, has learned his lesson and, in fact, isn’t even opposing Prop B, you know, officially. But Neve, well, I’m guessing he might do one or two more Prop B columns afore the election, and then he’ll do more about the forthcoming lawsuit against Prop B, oh well. You’d think Neve would come out and support simply having no height limits at all, if he’s so concerned about this issue.

Once more:

“Richard and Barbara Stewart, the wealthy neighborhood NIMBYs who donated over $440,000 to stop the 8 Washington condominiums, are at it again. Official election contribution filings from this week show that the Stewarts have chipped in $143,750 in support of Proposition B, the ballot measure that would require a public vote on any potential structure on port land that exceeds current height limits.

OR, IN OTBER WORDS, THE BALLOT MEASURE THAT WOULD REQUIRE POLITICIANS AND THEIR APPOINTEES TO BE MORE RESPECTFUL OF THE ALREADY-EXPRESSED WISHES OF THE VOTERS OF SAN FRANCISCO.

With the Stewarts’ help, the Yes on Prop. B alliance has raised nearly $230,000. Compare that to Prop. B opponents, whose total is a $47,633, according to documents filed at the San Francisco Ethics Commission on Thursday. So much for the lofty talk from Prop. B supporters about listening to the voice of the people.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, CW NEVIUS? ED LEE DIDN’T “LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE” ABOUT 8 WASHINGTON AND NOW HE’S GETTING SPANKED BY THE VOTERS.

It sounds more like the voice of two people who live on the waterfront and want to protect their turf.

WELL, THAT’S THE SYSTEM, RIGHT NEVIUS?

So forget city government, the Port, the Planning Commission and elected officials.

WELL, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE VOTERS MEANT WHEN THEY VOTED FOR HEIGHT LIMITS, NEVIUS?

If you want to build something along the San Francisco waterfront, it seems you’d better pay a visit to the Stewarts.

OR, WHY NOT BE RESPECTFUL OF THE WISHES OF THE VOTERS?

And here’s the kicker. A recent poll shows that Prop. B is in trouble.

Begin with the structure that started the whole controversy – the Warriors new arena.

MAYBE, JUST MAYBE OUR MAYOR AND FORMER MAYORS STARTED THIS “CONTROVERSY” BY GOING AROUND THE EXPRESSED WILL OF THE VOTERS ONE TIME TOO MANY – IS THAT A POSSIBILITY, NEVE?

“At first blush, if you say, “Should we vote on everything?’ people are in favor,” said Eric Jaye, an adviser to the No on B group. “Then they think about it and say, How’s that going to work?'”

WELL MAYBE THE MAYOR SHOULDN’T HAVE THE BACKERS OF 8 WASHINGTON FUND HIS PET PROJECTS. TO REPEAT, THE HEIGHT LIMITS ARE ALREADY THERE, RIGHT? WHY NOT HAVE THE BUILDERS RESPECT THE WISHES OF THE VOTERS, WHY IS THAT SUCH A HARD THING TO DO? RESPECT THE LIMITS AND THEN THERE’S NO NEED FOR ANY VOTE, RIGHT?

Well, I can give you the worst case scenario. If Prop. B wins it will be the second huge victory for the Art Agnos-Aaron Peskin-Golinger crowd. Developers aren’t stupid. If they really want to build something on the waterfront, they will have to recognize that that waterfront alliance has the political juice. Rather than put a potential development up for election and hope for the best, they will want to get the blessing of that faction, particularly the Stewarts. The result could be a series of backroom meetings where Agnos and others meet with the builders, work out an arrangement – with concessions to the alliance of course – and then put the brokered deal on the ballot with the group’s endorsement.

SO NEVIUS IS NOW AGAINST “BACKROOM MEETINGS?” REALLY? DOES THIS ALSO APPLY TO ALL THE POLS ON THE RIGHT-SIDE-OF-THE-AISLE POLITICAL FACTION CW NEVIUS IS ALWAYS CHEERLEADING FOR?

Which sounds like you’re setting up a little back room protection racket to me. And yet there is a feeling that Prop. B is taking on water.

SO WHEN DID YOU MOVE HERE FROM THE EAST BAY, NEVIUS – A COUPLE YEARS AGO? FINE, BUT WHAT’S THE “WASTE OF TIME?” ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WASTING _YOUR_ TIME TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF AN UPCOMING ELECTION? ISN’T THAT A BIT MUCH? LIKE, DO YOU THINK SAN FRANCISCANS WOULD PONDER MOVING TO WALNUT CREEK OR WHEREVER THE HELL YOU’RE FROM TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONS THERE?

Proposition B is almost certainly going to pass. That’s the ordinance that will mandate an election on any construction on the waterfront that exceeds the existing height limit.

WELL THAT’S ONE WAY OF PHRASING IT, I SUPPOSE. BUT HOW ABOUT “PROP B WILL PREVENT POLITICIANS FROM IGNORING THE CURRENT HEIGHT LIMITS ON THE WATERFRONT,” YOU KNOW, INSTEAD?

It’s got a snappy slogan – “Let the people decide” – an enthusiastic base of supporters and the always compelling what-the-heck factor. Why not vote for it? What’s the harm? I believe the potential harm is greater than you think.

WELL, FAIR ENOUGH, NEVE. BUT I THINK YOUR SELF-APPOINTED ROLE OF BEING THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTABLISHMENT’S “MAN AT THE CHRONICLE” DOES MORE HARM THAN _YOU_ THINK – HOW ABOUT THAT? YOU JUST MOVED TO THE MOST CORRUPT BIG CITY WEST OF CHICAGO, BUT YOU SEEM TO THINK THE DOMINANT POLITICAL FACTION WHAT RULES THIS TOWN IS JUST HUNKY-DORY. BUT I DIGRESS. PLEASE DO GO ON, NEVE, EVEN IF IT IS A BIG WASTE OF YOUR PRECIOUS, PRECIOUS TIME.

Not that it matters. This is seen as such a slam dunk that not a single San Francisco politician is willing to stand up and oppose it. Someone ought to express some reservations.

I BELIEVE ED LEE HAS “EXPRESSED RESERVATIONS” REGARDING PROP B. ALSO, PROP B OPPONENTS HAVE DESCRIBED THE MAYOR AS BEING OPPOSED.

UH, NO, THEY’RE _HIGHLY_ CONVINCING. OTHERWISE MARK FARRELL OR SCOTT WIENER OR ED LEE WOULD HAVE GONE ON THE RECORD AGAINST PROP B. ALSO, IT’S NOT JUST “SUPPORTERS” WHO CONSIDER THAT VOTE A LANDSLIDE.

Just 27 percent of registered voters cast ballots, so you could say that almost three-fourths of voters couldn’t be bothered to mark a ballot.

THEREFORE WHAT? THE ELECTORATE IS THE ELECTORATE, NEVE – DEAL WITH THAT. YES, YOU’RE PARROTING THE PARTY LINE, ESPOUSED BY OTHER ESTABLISHMENT SPOKESPEOPLE IN ADDITION TO YOU, NEVE, BUT THE TURNOUT WAS WHAT THE TURNOUT WAS.

It did win across the city, but in places like the Marina and SoMa, turnout was barely 20 percent. And in Bayview and Ingleside it was closer to 10. Still, that’s enough when 50 percent of Telegraph Hill area voters turn out. That’s the strategy. Target an off-year election with low turnout, mobilize the base of voters who favor the position and then claim you’re surfing the new wave of public opinion.

BUT THERE _IS_ A NEW WAVE OF PUBLIC OPINION, RIGHT? SO YOU’RE DEAD WRONG THERE.

So if you liked 8 Washington, you’re going to love Prop B. It’s on a June ballot that will see low turnout, vociferous support from a dedicated core and Agnos haranguing anyone who dares to oppose it.

NEVIUS, DOES ANYBODY ON YOUR SIDE OF THE AISLE EVER DO ANY “HARANGUING?” YOU MIGHT THINK NOT BUT MAYBE THEY DO, NEVE. AND DO YOU SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN BARS TALKING WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT? ‘CAUSE YOU SURE SOUND LIKE YOU DO.

But since he’s already mad at me for calling his group the Flat Earth Society, I’d say this: First, if this is such a good idea, why stop there? Shouldn’t other neighborhoods be able to vote on height limitations?

UH, _ALL_ NEIGHBORHOODS JUST VOTED ON HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, RIGHT? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, NEVIUS? WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING? DO YOU HAVE AN EDITOR? IT DOESN’T SEEM THAT WAY. WHY DO OTHER PEOPLE AT THE CHRON WHO ARE, YOU KNOW, WAY SMARTER THAN YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN EDITOR BUT YOU CAN JUST WRITE WHATEVER YOU WANT, REGARDLESS OF REALITY?

Or homeless shelters. Or Muni routes? Or whether the mayor should have soup or salad for lunch?

ALL RIGHT, NEVE, HERE WE GO. WE DON’T CURRENTLY HAVE ANY RULES ABOUT WHAT THE MAYOR SHOULD EAT, DO WE? HOWEVER, WE _DO_ HAVE A RULE ABOUT HEIGHT LIMITATIONS NEAR THE WATERFRONT. THE CURRENT PROBLEM IS THAT THERE’S NOTHING STOPPING A DEVELOPER FROM DONATING A RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT, SAY GIVING $25,000 TO SOMETHING HAVING SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE AMERICA’S CUP, YOU KNOW, TO “HELP OUT” OUR POOR POOR MAYOR AND THEN, LATER ON, WE’RE LEFT WITH A SITUATION WHERE WE DON’T KNOW WHY THE MAYOR PRESSURED HIS APPOINTEES TO JUST IGNORE THE WILL OF THE VOTERS. I’LL TELL YOU, I WOULDN’T EVER DREAM OF MOVING TO WALNUT CREEK OR WHEREVER AND THEN START TELLING PEOPLE HOW TALL THEIR BUILDINGS SHOULD BE. HEY, WHY NOT THIS, NEVE, WHY DON’T YOU LOBBY FOR A VOTE TO RAISE THE HEIGHT LIMITS ON THE WATERFRONT OR JUST GET RID OF THEM ALTOGETHER? WHY DON’T YOU BE DIRECT ABOUT THIS SITUATION, THE ONE YOU CARE SO MUCH ABOUT?

Elections are expensive and time consuming.

I SUPPOSE NEVE, BUT THE REASON WE HAVE THE PROPOSITION SYSTEM HAS TO DO WITH A WELL-PLACED CONCERN OVER POLITICAL CORRUPTION

They’re also a formula for gridlock. The Giants have prepared a terrific plan for a retail center on their parking lot A.

WHO SHOULD DECIDE HOW “TERRIFIC” ANY PLAN FROM THE GIANTS IS, NEVIUS? YOU, THE NOT-TOO-BRILLIANT SPORTS JOCK? YOU, THE ONE WHO JUST LOVED THE _INITIAL_ AMERICA’S CUP PROPOSAL BACK WHEN YOU LIVED IN THE EAST BAY, REMEMBER? WHY SHOULD WE TAKE YOUR WORD ON THIS?

Now they might have to prepare an election strategy.

FINE, WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT? PERHAPS THEY SHOULD LEAVE IF THEY DON’T LIKE THINGS HERE. (AND PERHAPS YOU, THE MIGHTY NEVIUS, SHOULD LEAVE IF YOU DON’T LIKE THINGS HERE.)

Second, the elections-for-everything meme short-circuits the political system.

FINE, WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT?

We elect public officials and expect them to use their good judgment, regardless of the views of a small, rabid group.

DID WE “ELECT” ED LEE? NO WE DID NOT. HE WAS APPOINTED FOR, EFFECTIVELY, NINE YEARS, BASED UPON A PLEDGE HE MADE THAT TURNED OUT TO NO PLEDGE AT ALL, A BIG FAT LIE. AND IF THE GROUP YOU OPPOSE IS SO “SMALL,” HOW IS IT THAT THEIR PROPS KEEP WINNING?

There are those who want to compare Agnos’ small, dedicated core to the Tea Party, which also wants to take government out of our lives.

DOES ART AGNOS REALLY WANT TO “TAKE GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES?” NO, NOT AT ALL.

But a better comparison would be Howard Jarvis‘ “people power” revolution in 1978. Jarvis became a national sensation when he championed Proposition 13, which clamped down on property taxes in California.

HEY NEVE! WERE YOU ABLE TO TRANSFER YOUR PROP 13 TO FRISCO COUNTY, YOU KNOW THE WAY SOME EMPTY NESTERS IN CALIFORNIA ARE ABLE TO DO? MMMM… BUT IF NOT, YOU’RE KIND OF GETTING SCREWED BY PROP 13 NEVE, IF YOU DIDN’T KNOW THAT ALREADY.

The result was immediate and disastrous.

WELL, IN YOUR OPINION, NEVE. AT THE TIME, NANAS AND POP-POPS WERE BEING FORCED TO SELL THEIR HOMES ALL OVER THE STATE DUE TO REAL ESTATE INFLATION. SO, IRL, THERE WERE WINNERS AND LOSERS DUE TO PROP 13. DON’T YOU KNOW THIS, NEVE? ISN’T THERE ANY NUANCE THERE BEWIXT YOUR EARS, NEVE?

Schools suffered, in particular, and only now is there a concerted effort to walk back some of the tax breaks for businesses, which are using the measure to game the tax system.

HEY NEVE, WHY NOT SUGGEST GETTING RID OF PROP 13 ALTOGETHER, IF YOU HATE IT SO MUCH?

Prop. 13 was supposed to be exciting, innovative and life-affirming.

UH, CAN YOU LINK TO THESE QUOTES, NEVE? I THINK YOU’RE JUST MAKING UP ADJECTIVES IN ORDER TO CLOSE YOUR BIT. HEY, CAN I GET A RULING HERE, EDITOR? HELLO, ED? ANYBODY THERE?

Instead, it was just the product of lazy, simplistic rhetoric. So is Prop. B.

HEY NEVE, WHO AT THE CHRONICLE IS LAZIER AND SIMPLER THAN YOU? SERIOUSLY. YOU DON’T DO ALL THAT MUCH WORK AND YOU’RE NOT THAT SMART, RIGHT?

This isn’t the Arab Spring, it is spring break. I’d worry about the hangover.

I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT NEVE. IF YOU WANT TO GET RID OF HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, THEN YOU SHOULD PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT. BY THIS POINT, POLS SHOULD KNOW IF THEY ABUSE THE VOTERS TOO MUCH, IF THEY PRESSURE THEIR APPOINTEES TO JUST IGNORE PRIOR VOTER RESULTS THEN THE VOTERS JUST MIGHT RISE UP AND TURN SOMETHING THAT WAS ADVISORY INTO SOMETHING MANDATORY.

So, unlike the disastrous America’s Cup and 8 Washington campaigns, the Golden State Warriors project is based around stuff that San Franciscans can actually benefit from.

So that’s a good sign.

Remember, the more you complain now, the better this deal gets for San Francisco. You the public are the bad cop and genial SFGov figurehead Ed Lee is the good cop. And of course the good cop won’t be able to get the best deal possible for San Francisco without the bad cop.

If Ed Lee doesn’t like this game, then he can just retire, right? Or go back to his old job the way he promised to in the first place, right?

Now, supposedly we had a bad one blow through town a few years back down at the Cow Palace. Your local MSM Arts crew was non-enthusiastic – not all of them wanted to go review it, see? So comped tickets made it all the way down to people involved with lesser blogs, such as your truly.

And I’ll tell you, C du S in that ugly, ugly Daly City concrete blockhouse was awesome. They had like 17 bits to do and 16 of them were very impressive or better. And keep in mind that this was an older show that was put on not under the big tent.

So now we have a brand new show coming to town starting November 15th, 2013.

The time to buy tickets for it is right now. You’ll thank yourself later on.

All the deets:

AMALUNA UNDER THE BIG TOPACCESS TICKETS BEFORE EVERYONE ELSE

Bonjour. Time is quickly running out for the pre-sale ofAmaluna in Northern California — tickets will be made available to the general public on June 14.*

“Paramount Group is going on the offensive on the waterfront, trying to build early community support for a planned 350-foot-tall condominium tower at 75 Howard St. in San Francisco.”

Wow, a war metaphor plus the word “offensive” in the same sentence as the “350-foot-tall condominium” that’s to be on the waterfront. Let’s call that a two-fer.

Oh, and who’s the spokesmodel for 75 Howard? Well, if Hitler came back from the dead and wanted to make money erecting tall buildings right near The Embarcadero, he’d dump Goebbels and hire … former Willie Brown spokesmodel PJ Johnston:

“On Jan. 10, Paramount held a community meeting to gather comments from neighbors. ‘This is a voluntary step on our part,”’ said project spokesman P.J. Johnston. ‘It’s not required, but it seems like the right thing to do.”*

So it all comes together.

Enjoy your new building, SoMA!

And people, if you have the luxury of walking to work every day, then sure, why not do it?

* On Jan. 10, 1939, the Third Reich held a community meeting to gather comments from non-German speaking neighbors of the Sudetenland. ‘This is a voluntary step on our part,’ said project spokesman Joseph “PJ” Goebbels. ‘It’s not required by the Munich Agreement, but it seemed like the right thing to do.’